Need to let loose a primal scream without collecting footnotes first? Have a sneer percolating in your system but not enough time/energy to make a whole post about it? Go forth and be mid: Welcome to the Stubsack, your first port of call for learning fresh Awful you’ll near-instantly regret.
Any awful.systems sub may be subsneered in this subthread, techtakes or no.
If your sneer seems higher quality than you thought, feel free to cut’n’paste it into its own post — there’s no quota for posting and the bar really isn’t that high.
The post Xitter web has spawned soo many “esoteric” right wing freaks, but there’s no appropriate sneer-space for them. I’m talking redscare-ish, reality challenged “culture critics” who write about everything but understand nothing. I’m talking about reply-guys who make the same 6 tweets about the same 3 subjects. They’re inescapable at this point, yet I don’t see them mocked (as much as they should be)
Like, there was one dude a while back who insisted that women couldn’t be surgeons because they didn’t believe in the moon or in stars? I think each and every one of these guys is uniquely fucked up and if I can’t escape them, I would love to sneer at them.
(Semi-obligatory thanks to @dgerard for starting this.)
Project Gutenberg has AI generated summaries?? How the mighty have fallen.
I was researching a bizarre old sci-fi book I once read (don't judge; bad old sci-fi is a trip), and Gutenberg's summary claims it was written in the 21st century. There's actually no accurate information about this book online, as far as I can tell the earliest reference is Project Gutenberg typing it up into a text file in 2003.
Given that it's in the public domain, no one has any idea where it came from, and it has old sci-fi vibes; I strongly suspect it was written in the 20th century*; making that misinformation. It's also just a bad summary that, while not wrong, doesn't really reflect the (amusingly weird) themes of the book.
Anyway someone needs to tell them that no information is leagues better than misinformation.
* maybe the '70s give or take but I'm not a professional date guesser
It definitely has that old sci-fi weirdness to it, but the earliest edition I'm seeing on goodreads was in '03.
The file metadata of the oldest copy on the gutenberg webserver says 2003 -- and the document itself says Gutenberg created it in 2003 and published it in 2005 (whatever that means, maybe they were delaying ebook releases to ensure a steady stream)
Anyway this 2003 copy had their public domain boilerplate; it was described as a book in the public domain.
There are indeed a lot of websites about this, but none with any more information that Project Gutenberg so I'm guessing they all trace back to the Gutenberg release. Probably you'd have to find some physical information about it in an actual library to trace it further.
But I'm not like a professional book researcher or anything, that's just my opinion!
That is indeed troubling, casts a shadow on Project Gutenberg's judgement. Now I wonder how long until Wikipedia falls too :( Gosh, I miss being excited about new tech. Now new tech is just making things worse.
About that book, so it is more "good bad" instead of "bad bad"? Maybe I'll take a look, some light/weird reading might be better than doomscrolling (and these days there's so much doom to scroll).
I don't remember (reading it was a bit like a fever dream) but there's a non-zero chance it has racist vibes in parts you have been warned.
But oh so quotable:
Okay thanks for the heads-up, I will give it a try. The "Note to the reader" it starts with is already pretty wild... (unless that's just part of the fiction. Edit: I assume it's part of the fiction)
Edit: okay... a few pages in, I don't think I can do this. The feeling of reading the first chapter reminded me a little of reading the timecube website.
Ick.